Wednesday, December 23, 2015

PSTET :HC upholds state’s clause of test for 3,522 teaching posts

PSTET :HC upholds state’s clause of test for 3,522 teaching postsChandigarh, December 18The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the state government’s decision to prepare a merit list for 3,522 posts of ETT teacher on the basis of marks obtained in the Punjab State Teachers Eligibility Test-1, apart from educational qualification of two-year ETT course.The ruling by Justice GS Sandhawalia came on a bunch of two petitions filed by Mandeep Kaur and others. A challenge was thrown to Clause 3 of public notice dated November 9, whereby applications were invited for filling up 3,522 posts of ETT teachers in the state Education Department.The clause made it clear that apart from the education qualification of aspirants having done a two-year ETT course, the merit list would be based on marks obtained by the candidates in PSTET.The petitioners argued the percentage of marks obtained in diploma in Elementary Teacher Training or the Bachelor of Elementary Education etc. were being ignored. Referring to Clause 9 of the guidelines issued by the NCTE, the petitioners submitted that marks in TET were the only eligibility criteria and did not confer any right of recruitment or employment.Taking up the petition, Justice Sandhawalia asserted: “The principal issue which arises is that whether the methodology of recruitment or the criteria which is to be fixed is to be interfered by this court only because the petitioners are having other qualifications which are liable for consideration for appointment.”Justice Sandhawalia added that it was for the employer to lay down the basis to select aspirants. It was not for the High Court to examine whether the laid down criteria was patently arbitrary in the absence of violation of the statute or mala fides on part of the respondent. “The criteria of selection would be within the domain of the employer.”“It is settled principle that it is the State to lay down the policy and in the absence of any mala fide being pointed out the same is being done to suit some private respondents, Clause 3 cannot be held to be arbitrary as canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner…. Resultantly, the present cases have no merit and both the writ petitions stand dismissed.”